[lac-discuss-en] Transcripción At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG).
Harold Arcos
harold.arcos at gmail.com
Wed Jul 31 23:07:40 UTC 2019
*ES*
Estimada Región
Por esta vía compartimos el archivo de transcripción de la reunión de hoy
del
*At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG). *
Guardados en tres formatos para su conveniencia de uso.
Saludos
*EN*
Dear Region
We share the transcript file of today's At-Large Consolidated Policy
Working Group (CPWG) call.
Saved in three formats for your convenience of use.
regards
Harold
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/attachments/20190731/4b34bcd2/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call
Wednesday, 31 July 2019 at 21:00 UTC for 90 mins.
The agenda can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg
Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/531558192
[streamtext.net] https://www.streamtext.net/player?event=ICANN
Transcription
>> CLAUDIA RUIZ: Hello, everyone. Welcome to the CPWG call on Wednesday, the 31st of July. We are approximately two minutes from the top of the hour. I would like to remind everyone to please mute your lines when not speaking to prevent any background noise.
And, also, that we are using RTT, which is realtime transcribing for the first time on this call today. I have just added a link in the chat where you can click it and follow along if you wish. Thank you.
>> CLAUDIA RUIZ: Hello, Olivier. Okay, it's at the top of the hour, let me know when you would like to begin.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Before we start, let me just see. I'm looking at the transcription tool. I've always wanted to try this on the phone. So she sells sea shells on the seashore. [Laughter]. From the ship. The RTT works, so that's fine.
All right, let's get going then, please. Start the recording and start the call.
>> CLAUDIA RUIZ: Okay, thank you. One moment.
[This meeting is being recorded]
>> CLAUDIA RUIZ: Good morning, good afternoon, and good evening everyone. Welcome to the 2019-07-31 At-Large Consolidated Public Work Group. On the call today we have Olivier Crepin-Leblond. Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Maria Connez, Dibani, Alan Greenberg, John Lepriest, [indiscernible] and Evin Erdogdu. On the Spanish channel we have [indiscernible].
We have received apologies from Lilian and Vanda. From Staff we have Heidi Ullrich, Giesella Gruber, Evin Erdogdu, Yesim and myself Claudia Ruiz.
Before we begin, I would like to remind everyone to please state their name before speaking for translation purposes and also so the interpreters can identify you on the other language channels. And please keep your lines muted while not speaking to prevent any background noise. And, also, another reminder that we are using RTT, which is realtime transcribing, on today's call for the first time. I have just entered the link in the chat box, so feel free to click it and you can follow along with the captioner.
Thank you very much and I turn it over to you, Olivier.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Thank you, very much Claudia. Olivier Crepin-Leblond speaking. Welcome everyone to another week of exciting policy work. We have a very full agenda yet again today. First the EPDP Phase I I update, which hopefully will be faster than last week, we are getting things moving. And then we will have CPWG updates from Holly Raiche and Justine Chew. That will look at the whole table of issues that are being worked on and also the Applicant Support Program. And then we'll have a discussion in response to the ICANN global division regarding the GLTD. After that, work track 5, geoname scenario, just for comment. After that we'll have a consolidated policy Working Group charter and "Ideal" proposal from Jonathan. After this, finally, we'll reach the policy comment update, hopefully within this century. And we've got quite a few of them, so hopefully we will finish them within a century.
And then after that, as there always is, would be any other business, if anybody is still alive by then. And I wonder whether anyone wishes to add any other business to the current agenda.
I'm not seeing anybody put their hand up, so the agenda is adopted as-is. And we can go to the action items, all of which have been completed.
And I'll just open the floor if there are any comments on any of these action items. Many of these are about preparation for this week's call, so I'm glad they were all undertaken.
Again, I'm not seeing any hands up, so the action items are completed and closed.
And we can, therefore, move to Agenda Item three and that's the Phase II update from Hadia Elminiawi and Alan Greenberg. I haven't seen -- I've seen both Hadia and Alan here, so I'm not sure who wishes to take the floor.
>> ALAN GREENBERG: Alan will take the floor.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Alan Greenberg, you have the floor.
>> ALAN GREENBERG: Thank you very much. Not a lot to report other than a discussion that's been going on e-mail, it started a week ago. I may have mentioned it last week, I don't really recall for sure.
One of the issues that has come up and I have proposed a question to ask our external legal council is to what extent can we -- when a request from a third party comes in, to what extent can the contracted party rely on knowledge of who the person is, the entity is, and how they have been authenticated and accredited?
So for instance, if someone establishes themselves as a Trademark attorney who will be handling certain classes of questions -- of issues where they may need access to certain information, can the contracted party presume that the request is valid because of what is making it? Because of how they have been accredited? And what commitments they have made to get that accreditation?
The question is important because GDPR requires a balancing test. That is, does the specific need outweigh the right of the contracted -- of the data subject to privacy?
Now the simple answer is, of course it matters. If you're going to go to a contracted party, if they know who you are and can trust you, then they are more likely to respond positively to your request. But the question is, if someone comes and simply produces their authentication, their credentials saying they have been accredited under certain ways, can we presume the request is valid?
If the answer is no, then as far as anyone has been able to tell me, essentially we are saying we will never have an automated system, that every request will have to go through a human being who will have to look at the details, look at who was making the request, and decide whether the balance is met one way or another. And that implies -- when I say "human" it could conceivably be some level of artificial intelligence if you believe you could build such a system and you can trust it and that is not something that is absolutely clear.
There has been a pushback from a number of groups saying, under in conditions can you avoid doing the balancing, that is a human being is going to have do the balancing, which implies that we cannot have an automated or semi-automated system doing this work and that essentially invalidates the whole concept of a system that can respond without human intervention, which is one of the primary presumptions of the EPDP, at least from my perspective.
So there has been pushback saying it's obvious you cannot do the balancing without someone actually balancing, so it's a stupid question. And the word "stupid" was used. Other people have made the case, no, it's an important question because if we're going to discard the concept of an automated system, then we bet have, you know, strong legal grounds and legal advice to do so.
So that's where it stands. Not clear if the question will go to legal council or not and, you know, the mail has died down, so it's probably a moot case until it goes to the legal committee, which will meet in a week or so and decide whether to put it forward.
So I justwanted to let people know that's where we stand on that one and it's one we initiated and it may go forward or not. Other than that, we're not making an awful lot of progress right now. And Hadia is on the call, she may want to add something, but I'm not sure there's a lot new going on.
I see Hadia's hand is up.
>> HADIA ELMINIAWI: As Alan said, there's nothing much going on [audio fading in and out] we are still discussing use cases. We have been discussing the legal use cases and we know they presented a case and we were -- they were represents it on the last call. And, again, as Alan mentioned, there were a lot of discussions around credentials and validation and automation. And if automation would be possible or legal or not. And not maybe a fully automated system, but a partially automated system.
And, also, there's been [audio faded out].
>> ALAN GREENBERG: Have we lost Hadia? Have you lost me?
>> CLAUDIA RUIZ: Hi, Alan. Yeah, I think we lost --.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: It's Olivier. It looks like we might have lost Hadia.
Let's continue with any other questions from anybody else on the call until we get Hadia back.
>> ALAN GREENBERG: I see a hand from Holly.
>> HOLLY RAICHE: Can you hear me?
>> ALAN GREENBERG: Yes.
>> HOLLY RAICHE: Okay. Alan, I'm particularly interested in the response from both the Registries and the Registrars because I cannot imagine how they would handle anything other than an automated system, so are they part of the argument saying it has to be, somehow there has to be human intervention or not? Thank you.
>> ALAN GREENBERG: They have been reasonably silent on this particular discussion.
>> [Laughter].
>> ALAN GREENBERG: However, you cannot lump them all together. The smaller entities and in particular those based in Europe and very particularly the smaller ones based in Europe are adamant that there is no way to do this without a human being looking at ever request.
The larger entities and Go Daddy is clearly the exemplar of that one has made the comment, well, I'll give the [indiscernible] the comment, not the one made in the meeting, there aren't enough lawyers in the world that they can hire to look at every request by hand. That's an off-the-cuff comment, but nonetheless, it gives you the tone.
So is varies heavily. Registrars are not all the same. Registries don't tend to get too many requests to begin with. So the answer depends on who you're talking to.
But in any case, on this particular discussion, they have been remarkably silent. It has been very much the NCSG who has been the vocal ones, basically saying, under no conditions could this ever happen, forget it, you're wasting your time. And it's obvious, everyone should have known that it's obvious. It's not quite as obvious to everyone.
>> [Laughter].
>> ALAN GREENBERG: So that's where it stands.
>> HOLLY RAICHE: Thank you.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: It's Olivier speaking. I'm not seeing any other hands at the moment.
I do have one question, Alan , and last week Hadia mentioned that the case scenarios were being looked at two at a time -- or one at a time, I can't remember.
>> ALAN GREENBERG: One at a time.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Has this work continued this week?
>> ALAN GREENBERG: Well, this week hasn't happened yet. The -- we did -- we started working on another case study last time. There was an SSAC one that we just barely started. It's not clear if it's going to continue this week or not. Greg Aaron, who is the one presenting it is not here this week. He had asked that it not be discussed this week. Last I heard, the Chair had said it will be discussed and he can listen to the comments, listen to the recording afterwards and make any comments, so I'm not quite sure how that's going to play out.
There was a ranking exercise to try to order -- the various case studies have been grouped together and there was a ranking to order them within each group and that will probably be discussed at the meeting tomorrow and I presume we will work on one other or two other case studies, so work is proceeding on the case studies, yes.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Thank you, Alan. It's Olivier speaking. Is Hadia back with us? Does she have anything else to add if she is?
>> HADIA ELMINIAWI: Yes, yes, thank you, Alan.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Oh, you're back, yes.
>> HADIA ELMINIAWI: Yes. Actually, nothing more to add than what Alan said. And, again, you know, I don't know if you heard that part, but we were discussing again automation and if it would be possible or not, if it's legally possible or not. In my personal view, that, you know, the requirement for this balance doesn't necessarily mean that a human intervention is required.
And, again, we were discussing if we need to delve right now into the details or move on and discussion the operation later.
As Alan mention, the non-commercial stakeholder group are the ones that are really of the view that it won't be possible, however, I don't think the others totally agree with that. Thank you.
>> ALAN GREENBERG: Yeah, if I may add. The whole issue of the balancing test, now GDPR, you know, uses interesting words in some cases that, you know, implies a balance must, you know, one must consider the rights in considering the request. It doesn't explicitly say you have to evaluate each case-by-case, but that is certainly implied by some people. And for those people who believe they have a liability if they make a mistake, clearly that is something of paramount importance.
As Holly eluded to, however, there are other parties that get large numbers of cases and they need to be able to simplify this process to make it manageable.
And that's it for me.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Thank you very much, Alan. Olivier Crepin-Leblond.
I notice John Laprise has his hand up. John you have the floor.
>> Thank you, this is John Laprise for the record.
A question to both Alan and Hadia on this. I know in GDPR there is a pretty stringent requirement or admonition, I guess, against automatic processing of data or there has to be formal disclosure of that. I forgot exactly how it's worded, but it is within GDPR. Does what we're talking about now in terms of processing these requests conflict with that?
>> ALAN GREENBERG: I don't know. Certainly there would have to be disclosure if it was going to be processed like -- you know, if it was going to be done. It's quite clear. And you also to, you know, in many cases, but not all, provide notice to the data subject that their data has been given out. So it's all a fuzzy question. There are different interpretations. And if you'll remember back, we're also trying to arrange things so that if there is such an automated system that ICANN assumes the liability, so it's our liability, not theirs, that's what we would like to think is possible. We haven't heard that from the data commissioners. And without that happening, probably there are going to be many controllers who will not accept an automated system. The risk simply outweighs what the cost is to them of processing things by hand. You know? But the number of requests we're talking about range from a couple per month to literally thousands per day. So depending on who you are. So, clearly there are very different scenarios playing out on the different parts -- on the different parties, rather.
The bottom line is, we don't know, we need to get some legal advice, not just people who say it's obvious.
Greg has his hand up.
>> GREG SHATAN: Greg Shatan. Thanks, it's Greg Shatan for the record. I have been watching the mailing list of the EPDP closely on this issue and, you know, to my mind, I think those who don't want automated processing of requests to go forward are those who don't want WHOIS to work, period. And those who say it is obvious are, at least in one case not qualified to make that judgment and in another case, you know, maybe advocating for a particular judgment. But in any case, I think this is one where in spite of, you know, rather harsh words used by a couple of people, legal advice is very much needed. Thanks.
>> ALAN GREENBERG: Yep. I mean, one of the things to note is the wording of how GDPR is put together clearly makes this kind of thing much harder than it is in other privacy legislation. So it may well be that it's not possible, but in that case, we have a situation where how do we put the right mechanisms in place to keep the Internet running, at the same time we are observant of GDPR regulations? And it's possible those two simply can't fit together.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Okay, well, thank you for this, Alan, and thank you for this update, Hadia. I don't see any further hands and we do have to move on, so we look forward to your updates next week after all these calls.
And we can, therefore, move now to the next Agenda Item, that's the subsequent procedures with Holly Raiche and Justine Chew. And I gather it's Holly that will take the floor to start with. Holly Raiche.
>> HOLLY RAICHE: Thank you, Olivier. What I have done is, and I'm not sure what's on the screen, but I'll just talk in general terms and then hand it over largely to Justine.
After last week's call it became obvious that some of the issues that we identified in the issues paper for arising for SubPros were really issues for subsequent procedure, but there are other items that came out of the CCT report that were recommendations for the Board or for amendments to the RAA or other changes. So it became clear that there's really sort of a two-part process we need to go through if we're going to talk about, we should be looking at making sure the things we asked for and believe in happen before subsequent procedures.
So I've mentally kind of split that up. Justine is going to talk about subsequent procedures and, indeed, what issues are before subsequent procedures, which is largely about, I hesitate to say it, but the Global South or whatever terminology they use. But there are other things, for example, surveys that they suggested ICANN should do. There were a lot of suggestions or recommendations for changes to the RAA or identification of perhaps misgrew ENT Registries and Registrars.
So my suggestion is we proceed mainly with Justine, but we reserve, I suppose, the onus on us to go through the issues list and ask how we're going to make sure that the other recommendations, some of which are very important for DNS abuse issues go forward. And I suppose that's up to Jonathan.
So that's where we're up to. And I think most of the time for this should now go to Justine and the issue in front of subsequent procedures, which is about the applicant procedures and all of the issues related to that.
So with that, Justine, it's really over to you for the issue of, I suppose, applicant procedures and all of the issues that arise from that. And maybe later in the call, Jonathan, we can talk about how we deal with the remaining issues that are not subsequent procedures.
So thank you, and over to you, Justine.
>> JUSTINE CHEW: Thank you, Holly. This is Justine for the record. Sorry, my voice box is still half asleep, I think.
All right, just adding on to what Holly has said, I'll try to be very, very quick because lack of time and all, what we have done actually, essentially, is if you go to the -- if you see what's on the screen, we were able to produce a list of topics that is plucked out from the subsequent procedures agenda, basically. It sort of corresponds with the topics that have been put out for public comment. It's not exhaustive because we as At-Large did not comment on all the TOPICs, we commented on certain topics that we thought had a user angle and was of importance to us as a community.
So what I've attempted to do is actually list down by the topic and then the areas covered under each topic as they pertain to the CCT recommendations. So you see are, for example, global public interest in blue, those are the CCT recommendations that have been picked up by SubPro on the topic of global public interest. So that's how this table has been set up to just help identify which are the CCT recommendations that have been taken up under which topic.
And as you go across the table, on the far right you will see an indication of which recommendation goes to which party and whether it is a prerequisite, where you see P in brackets or whether it's high priority with H in brackets. Okay?
So having said this, if anyone feels that the list of subareas or even the issues topic is not exhaustive, by all means, put a note in the workspace or send a note to the mail list and we'll pick up the conversation from there. Okay?
So today I'm going to concentrate mostly on applicant support, but the idea is that every time discussion on SubPro takes place on a particular topic of interest, which is listed under this table, I will try to do a summary, I'll take a snapshot of where the deliberations of SubPro is at and highlight any, you know, thing that I see maybe of concern or maybe of interest to this group. And then anyone from CPWG can respond accordingly or just ask questions and, you know, whatever you want to do.
The idea is if you see, as a group, if we see something hasn't been taken up satisfactorily, we can at least talk about what we want to do as eluded to by Holly, whether we want to take it up further, how we're going to take it up further, and whom are we going to take it up further with?
Okay, so just touching on Applicant Support Program, can we have the other slides, please? I'm just going to move ahead. I'm not going to talk excessively on everything. I think everything is more or less captured in the slides. Just to give you an idea -- whoever is managing the call, can I have the other slides on the applicant support, please? The other. Yes, that's right.
Okay, so -- if you'll just move on to the next slide, please. What I've attempted to do and if anyone thinks this is not a very useful exercise, by all means tell me because then I can stop doing it all together and it will save me some precious time as well. But what I've attempted to do is with every snapshot, I'm going to list down by areas what the ALAC statements have touched on in the past. I will mostly concentrate on going back to just CCT, okay, because if I go back to -- from the start, from 2008, it's just going to take forever and I can't of don't have the time, to be honest. But I think CC2 and the public comments to the initial reports would have captured most of the positions that At-Large and ALAC have taken over the years anyway. I suspect there won't be major changes over time, but I could be wrong and people can point it out to me.
So if you see on the left-hand side I've pulled out the areas that ALAC statements have touched on. Okay? And I've also attempted to highlight the related SubPro areas or topics that applicant support may have -- may touch on. Okay? And I've pulled out the CCT recommendation that is have been picked up and the applicant support subsequent procedures Working Group.
Next slide, please.
Essentially, within the SubPro Working Group, there's an agreement, a high level agreement that the program in 2012 failed badly and it does need policy changes to have a greater chance at success. The issue now is, as you see the list of questions, what aspects need changing? And whether any changes will lead to undesired consequences? How do we prevent such consequences? Whether the timing of the procedures need to be changed? How do you measure success of the program? And how you fund the program itself and the related costs.
Next slide, please.
Okay, so, again, the structure of the how I'm going to pick up things is by the topic, highlighted in the first slide. Okay, so in terms of eligibility and eligibility criteria, so these are the things on the left side that ALAC has stated in their statements. And the right side will show you what state of the deliberations SubPro is at.
So for this of eligibility and eligibility criteria, the only high level that has been recorded by SubPro is that it will continue to be open to other things regardless of their location, as long as they meet program criteria and the criteria that the applicants have to meet. Okay?
Next.
In terms of awareness and outreach -- next slide, please. Yeah. Okay.
So I've also taken the liberty of highlighting things in a different color, I think that's something outstanding that maybe we want to have a look at, okay? So in terms of from the CCT panel report, the term "Global South" was picked up, okay? But essentially we have moved on a little bit from the use of the term "Global South" to underserved or underrepresented regions. I think SubPro itself has got no issues with this per se, but there is a -- how do you say? There are suggestions from ICANN Org also that they are looking into getting a better term than Global South because Global South implies, you know, southern hemisphere, there are also regions and communities within the northern hemisphere that are under-represented or underserved.
A few days ago I put this particular -- or the first version of this particular slide out on the list, you know, just to get people to start thinking. Yesterday, I put out this particular update and Evin gave me some feedback on the use of the U.N. human index resource as objective measure to -- how do you say? Identify what could be, what could be listed as underserved or under-represented region.
Okay, next slide, please.
So in terms of financial/non-financial support and whether there should be support just beyond the application into evaluation, for example at the moment the ASDSP only gives a sub-Siddy or reduced fee, application fee, but say the applicant were to succeed in ESP moves on, but hits a contention set, then there is actually no additional support for that applicant, you know, to move forward in the contention set. So for example, say someone objected, they would have to, you know, it goes to options, they wouldn't get any support in that area. Okay? And there's no agreement per se to extend the support just reduction in the application fee.
As to the content of the application fee, well, that's dependent on what the application fee is going to be set at and that discussion has not concluded yet, so we don't have an answer to that.
Okay, next slide, please.
All right. In terms of dedicated rounds for applicants , there is no definite answer on this, as far as I can tell. This could be related to the topic on applications assessing realms. If you recall, there was a new Staff proposal to have dedicated windows for different applications, so that's how it's kind of difficult because some of topics -- or some of the issues raised in one topic overflows into another topic, so we have to be careful to maintain the link. Okay?
Next slide, please.
Okay, this is something I need to highlight. We had suggested in our comment to the initial report that, you know, successful applicant for ASP should be given priority in any string contention so they would not be subject to any further string contention resolution process. This doesn't get support from SubPro. You can see this listed down there. There's no priority for successful applicants, an ASP applicant to get priority in the contention set. So I don't think the suggestion we made is going to fly. So just be aware of that.
And, lastly -- next slide. The last slide is the effect of rejection for ASP. In the 2012 realm, if the applicant did not succeed as an ASP applicant, then the application actually terminates. It would be marked as "will not proceed" and refunds will be granted and so forth. One of the key inputs that we received during our deliberation -- our own deliberations for the -- to the public comment for the initial report was that we thought this was an unfair situation and that something should be proposed to allow applicants who do not meet the ASP criteria, meaning they fail to get ASP, they should be given a choose to whether withdraw their application all together or transfer it to become a standard application. Okay?
And we added to say unless the applicant was found to have willfully gained, then the application should be allowed to be transferred to a standard application. Okay?
So I think this received high level agreement. In fact, we weren't the only ones who proposed this, but it has received high level agreement with SubPro, okay? So I think some of the outstanding questions would be, how do we then prevent gaining from happening? And how do we manage the risk of gaining?
Okay, that's it. I'm happy to take questions if we have time. If not, you know, put your questions or, you know, suggestions to the list. There is one call. There's another SubPro call in about five hours, I think it is, where we're going to be concluded, I suspect we're going to be concluding on the topic of applicant support.
And just to highlight, I've also put up a similar snapshot for global public interest. I'm not going talk about that today, but the link to the slide is on the workspace -- the table in the workspace. So I may put that out to the mailing list after this.
Thank you.
So let's go to chat.
>> CLAUDIA RUIZ: Justine, I see Cheryl has her hand up.
>> JUSTINE CHEW: Okay, Cheryl.
>> CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Hi, thanks. Sorry about the pool patrol background noise. [Indiscernible] was trying to pause what she was watching and she is trying to change to the Junior Disney Channel instead.
As Justine said -- Cheryl ladies and gentlemenen Don or for the record here. As Justine said, we will be finishing off applicant support in today's call, we will be looking at applicant as it relates to eligibility and a little more on that today, but we are finishing off our deliberations on applicant support and look for what high level agreements or any possible recommendations may or may not be able to get sufficient support for carriage after today's call finishes. So that's important.
Regarding the terminology, Justine mentioned there's alternative terminology looked at instead of the term "Global South." It was Mary who joined us at the call before last who noted that there is some current work, just beginning, but nevertheless, not going to be going on for too long, we trust, which will look at an ICANN-wide set of terminologies which may not include any of the current terms, such as disadvantaged or underserved or underrepresented and certainly not Global South. But what it should do is allow for a degree of uniformity in the terminology and the understanding of the terminology being used ICANN-wide which will include any new subjects and that will have an impact on the Applicant Support Program. And there is, indeed, a need for an efficient Applicant Support Program. But also things like CROP and other types of support across ICANN.
Thanks for that and thanks for the snapshot work, Justine, I think it's very, very useful.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: It's Olivier, I think I may be running the cue. So Olivier speaking.
Next is Holly Raiche.
>> HOLLY RAICHE: Justine and everybody, if you have been following the chat, you will see there's a reasonable difference of opinion here. I would say with the SubPro, if you're going to look at applicant support in terms of communities, and this is a definitional problem that goes back years, it's not just, and I hate the term "Global South" but we'll talk about Global South, there are issues of communities, genuine communities, whether it's first nation communities or other communities, and so the definition problem of community and of applicant support is also part of the problem of, how do you define what you mean by "applicant?" And how do you define in terms of applicant the kind of support that would assist an applicant for getting a domain name? So I think there are several issues tied up in that one question and I'm not sure we can solve that in five minutes, but just to alert you that it's a definitional one and it's a "why are we giving support one." Lots of issues rolled up in one, some of which are on the chat.
Thank you.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Thank you, Holly.
I have put myself in the queue, this is Olivier speaking, but what I'll do is to let Evin speak first. Evin Erdogdu.
>> EVIN ERDOGDU: Hi, everybody. This is Evin Erdogdu. I won't speak too much, I think I have said a lot here as well as in the chat. We have had a decade to learn what with what occurred with the last applicant program. There has been some soul searching and I'm not sure that soul searching came to be what I considered a satisfactory conclusion. This comes to a couple core assumptions that I think are behind the ALAC approach to applicant support that needs to be reviewed.
One of those is that communities require TLDs as a matter of cohesiveness and that, in fact, the existence of a TLD plays a part in cohesiveness. We even have research targets that we can look at. Somebody could look at, you know, did the delegation of.CAT create a better community for Catalonia than existed before? We do actually have instances where we could have done research and say, does a TLD -- does the existence of a TLD support a community that considers itself under threat? That research hasn't been done. In fact, we have absolutely zero evidence in front of us that there's an end user benefit to having a TLD serving specific identifiable communities. I haven't seen any evidence of that. I'm surprised ALAC is moving forward in the absence of such evidence.
Justine, you have done phenomenal work on this and I hope nothing I have said has distracted from the fact you have done phenomenal work and have maintained steadily in the face of new evidence and new facts that have came approach that should have changed the approach we take, but hasn't. It's unfortunate. I will remain on the record saying ALAC has not done a proper evaluation of whether or not applicant support serves the end user interest, which is what we are here to do as parts of our bylaws. You know, whether we should be fighting on behalf of certain applicants or not, I think, you know, we, you know, we made mistakes in the first round and some of that possibly was simply incorrect focus. And I would hope ALAC would have a look at this and they would re-examine its commitment to the end user in light of what we saw in terms of the consequences after the last round.
The circumstances are not the same, and yet we are ploughing ahead with essentially what is a fine-tuning. Yeah, there's policy changes and things like that, but essentially the very core assumptions that are beneath the old Applicant Support Program have not been re-evaluated or examined. I hope that happens, to avert not only a massive waste of -- loss of focus and hopefully, you know, preservation of ALAC's watching out in the public interest and being concerned about things like, is the Applicant Support Program going to threaten allowing in delegations from organizations that cannot afford to sustain long-term maintenance of a TLD. One of the things here in the slide, it's contentious that applicant support was not going to apply beyond the application itself. So if we have an organization that could not make an application without support, how do we have any confidence that they're going to remain stable and sustainable beyond that?
The end user concern of that is real. If, you know, if a TLD that benefited from applicant support, in fact, couldn't afford to really be there long-term folds and causes a stability problem. That, I don't think, has been gone into. I mean, it has, but to some extent, but I really, really hope that At-Large would reconsider the core assumptions that are behind the support of the applicant program -- Applicant Support Program, re-evaluate what we did the last go-round and have a long hard look at whether or not we should be putting in this kind of focus in these areas.
Thank you.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Thank you, Evan.
Justine did you want to respond or should I give the floor to Jonathan Zuck and I can respond to all of the comments that were made?
>> JUSTINE CHEW: This is Justine. I can't respond to Evan because, you know, that's ideological question. The thing is we have put in our comments. If we're going to now say, we don't care about ASP then, you know, we're going to have turnaround. So I'm just going to leave that question up to the group. As far as I'm concerned, I'm just bringing you an update as to what's happening in SubPro Working Group. And I'll have to go back and read all of the chats about the other comments.
Thank you.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Thank you, Justine.
Next up, Jonathan Zuck.
>> JONATHAN ZUCK: Thanks, Olivier. Just taking off my facilitator hat on this, I'm sympathetic to Justine's position, as Evan mentioned, just simply trying to carry the At-Large torch, whatever it is, in this process. But I'm sympathetic to Evan's perspective on this, in fact, as part of the CCT review, and it probably got lost to some extent in the recommendations that went to SubPro, although maybe Cheryl might correct me on this, was one of the recommendations was, figure out whether it was important for underserved regions to have TLDs. And that was prior to suggesting that there should be a revamping of the Applicant Support Program. Like Evan, I have not seen evidence of a real market for them. You look at the take-up of second level CCs in parts of the world and it's almost like playing a trick on somebody to give them enough money to get something started and not enough support for it to succeed, it's almost worse. And it's possible that our support, even though it might be outside the remit of ICANN, I don't know, is getting a better understanding of take-up in the secondary market in some of these underserved regions and seeing what needs to be happen for a market to get created. But getting somebody to apply for a domain may just be a dirty trick that we'd be playing on them if there's not a market for the second level domains.
So, I mean, I'm pretty sympathetic to Evan's argument about this. I will tell you Aubrey has been in my ear quite a bit on this topic and believes that there's some value in indigenous infrastructure that might result from this. But, again, absent some sort of investment, that might be difficult to put forward. And so as Evan mentioned, and others, it may be we need to have real targeted support that is more sustained and deeper so that somebody isn't just applying for a string and then outsourcing to VeriSign and we hope we solved the problems of that community. We really want to get the indigenous infrastructure that Aubrey is concerned about, and I'm sure many others, she is just the one that bent my ear about it, then we may need to approach this differently as well.
This is not targeted at Justine, it's targeted at ALAC, on whether we want to change our position. I don't care one little bit as we refine and discussion it further and we could recommend some research about the impact on TLDs on communities and I don't know where we wouldn't do that to further or position.
Anyway, sympathetic to Evan's position on this. Thanks.
Thank you, Jonathan.
In the interest of time, I will close the queue after Greg Shatan. So we still have Christopher Wilkinson and Greg Shatan in the queue. Next it's Christopher Wilkinson.
>> Hi, good evening, this is Christopher Wilkinson for the record. Very, very short and briefly, basically I support Justine's positions and arguments, both from the point of view of the policy and point of view of the procedure that we need to get input from a wider range of potential participants.
I also think that in the light of the -- what has been clearly described as the failure of the applicant support system in the previous round, Internationally it would be massively misinterpreted if ICANN in effect decided to discontinue this approach.
As I've mentioned in other communications, we need a much clearer and probably a much more ambitious of the budgetary facilities that are available for this purpose.
I rest it there, but I'm very sympathetic to the criticisms that just giving a discount on the application fee will prove to be not enough. It will almost certainly be more financially, it will be more in terms of technical assistance and Staff input, and as we've discussed elsewhere, we definitely need to find the support for third party financial institutions to participate and co-fund some of these applications because they will be more expensive than just giving a discount on the application fee.
Thank you.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Thank you very much for that, Christopher.
Next is Greg Shatan.
>> GREG SHATAN: Thanks, it's Greg Shatan for the record.
I'm sympathetic to the high level idea that without applicant support top level domains will go almost entirely to the well-heeled and well-funded and, you know, will create, you know, further inequalities. I think that's the high level, theoretical reason why people are interested in applicant support.
But I think that we have an opportunity in At-Large to do some of the research that Evan suggested. It may not rise to the level of scientific data research, but at least antidotally we should reach out to members of At-Large, those who participate actively, and to At-Large structures to find out without putting together too long of survey, you know, what kind of interests, you know, they believe there is in their communities for top level domains and what kind of help would actually really help. It would be good to get some ideas here.
I do agree with the idea that just paying or reducing the fee is not enough. I'm thinking that ICANN or ICANN plus some of the contracted parties or others need to run essentially an incubator or accelerator-type operation for applicants because without that kind of significant non-financial support, there's a much higher degree of failure.
In the end it comes down to if we have drunk the Kool-Aid to some extent thinking more TLDs are good or whether the whole thing is sort of a big mess that we just happen to be in the middle of, but in any case, if it's happening, and it is happening, that brings us back to the question of how to provide better equities in a way that's actually meaningful.
Thank you.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Thank you very much, Greg. Olivier speaking. There's a lot of discussion going on in the chat as well. Some real questions as to whether the At-Large may actually continue supporting the applicant program or change its course or perhaps amend its course.
I'm not one to judge, so I think that we probably need to continue this discussion.
Cheryl did mention that applicant support was being discussed this week. Is this correct?
>> JUSTINE CHEW: Yes. This is Justine. Yes, Olivier, I think it's coming to a conclusion in the next call, which is in about several hours time.
>> This will be the third call it's been discussed on, so that's three times 90 minutes is being committed to just this part of this discussion. It's Cheryl.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Okay, thank you, Cheryl for this and thank you, Justine.
This is quite critical. I'm noticing a number of people agreeing with Evan also on the chat. And so there certainly is some question within our community, or at least within the people on the call today, as to whether the At-Large community should push for an Applicant Support Program like it did the previous realm.
Could I just ask that the discussion goes on the mailing list, please, and tries to reach a conclusion somehow so as to provide some clearer responses to Justine because, Justine, I sense [laughter] you're a little bit of a question mark at the moment. I guess the default, of course, is for At-Large to continue in the same direction as it has in the past, but at the same time, it's a bit of a pity we are addressing this so late. Maybe this discussion should have taken place last week and it would have been a little bit more to push on this. But, indeed, yes, the other process part -- well, Cheryl is also writing in there, there are also aspects of proposed improvementment to the process associated that also provide support to the Registry service provider, technical, et cetera.
And I was just going to mention, I guess, as a closing word, that there are some legitimate requirements by some, I think I mentioned this, the first nations that might need the extra push to start things up and then afterwards may be able to make the money later on through registration to be self-sustaining. Not purely a commercial model.
>> Can I just say one other thing? It's Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Olivier. I'm also hearing and I'm trying to be only the provider of accurate information into this discussion, for what I hope are obvious reasons having had my capabilities on a number of levels sorely crittized by members of this group, so that said, there seems to be a use of terminology here I would also like to make very clear. The subsequent procedures Working Group will be completing its work, will be handing in its report, and will be finalizing as close to our existing timetable as possible. Dare I say regardless if certain things are or are not completed that may be considered as contingencies or as issues that are outstanding. We will note if that is the case, that these things are still not completed, MCAT comes to mind. There's no way on Earth that any of the work that is going to be coming out of the name collisions process will be done in any sort of synchronized manner to give us any data at all to reference in our final reporting before it goes to the GNSA council. So we will have to compensate for that in some shape or form in our drafting.
The work of SubPro will complete as close as possible to our advertised timeline. That does not, of course, mean that the next steps in what may or may not be a future offering in new gTLDs kicks off at a point in time. So just remember to keep those two things slightly separate in your mind. It can't kick off until the subsequent procedures work and recommendations are made, but the fact that the report is handed to the GNSO does not mean then a clock starts. It can't start before it, but it doesn't start the moment it happens.
Thank you.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Thank you for that, Cheryl. And we do have to move on.
I was just going to give 20 seconds to Justine if she has anything else to ask of people for her to be able to place a better view in the group within the next 24 hours. Are there any additional questions?
>> JUSTINE CHEW: No. As I said, I have to go back and have a look at the chat, but if people just want to respond or carry on a conversation, I'll try to pick it up from there. Thank you.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Thanks very much, Justine.
Next we have the response of the ICANN subsequent procedures. Jonathan Zuck, you have the floor.
>> JONATHAN ZUCK: Thanks, Olivier. We're discussing this today because it's come up and we've been discussing it on and off, but serious has come to At-Large Staff and is kind of standing over their shoulders for our response. So I just threw some things down that came from the e-mail threads that included Christopher's letters to serious and other things that have potential talking points as a response to Serious to get people's thoughts on them. And if you like them, then we'll get somebody to draft them so we can turn this around in, you know, in quick -- in some sort of quick format for Serious. Sorry.
So the big issues that sort of came up in the e-mail threats is that it was a bad process with which to approach this. It was sent out to SOs and ACs. It was kept out of the public eye and doing this as public comment with deadlines and sort of in the public eye would be a better, more transparent, multi-stakeholder approach to discussing this issue. So that's a process comment.
There's also assumptions on the number of applicants and that's been done without any kind of market research of what the take-up is likely to be. As Christopher mentioned his comments, there isn't even an agreement as to what a new round would look like. There's an estimate of 25,000 brand applicants and estimates as low as 500 applicants that might pop their head up in a new round given the success of the previous round.
So there's a wide span here and no real evidence or research to suggest what the size of that market looks like. And the reason that this is important is because part of the proposal from [indiscernible] is building new systems internally and they have said publicly the nature of those systems is completely dependent on the volume of potential applications. So actually having a more accurate number that's based on some kind of or research as opposed to just pulling a number out of a hat, let's say for the sake of politeness, isn't sufficient to be making huge dollar investments in new systems development for handling these applicants. So that's why it's worth them doing a little more work here.
Another point that Christopher made that we can pull out, has to do with inconsistent outsourcing, there's some discussion about minimizing the amount of outsourcing and it's very vague about how they are taking about doing that and as Christopher mentioned, it could be critical to the optics to the program if people are operating inconsistently, judging things inconsistently, et cetera, et cetera, and spending a little more time on the outsourcing section of these assumptions would be a good idea for GBB as well.
There's confusing estimates for cost and application support, so as we're discussing, it's not really built into this budget how that type of a program might be built and it's worth them addressing that.
And then finally, the only critical path that's mentioned in this is the work of the subsequent procedures Working Group. And while we kind of all know it and Cheryl just said it again, it's probably worth reminding Sirus there are a lot of other things that need to happen prior to any new round that should be included in this document of assumptions other than just a new applicant guidebook from the subsequent procedures Working Group.
That was sort of my summary. I wanted to do it quickly and get people's feedback and thoughts on this and then we can draft something pretty brief and get it to Sirus and his team.
I guess I'll take questions right now. I don't know the order from my interface, so I'm going to go in the order they are on the screen.
So Holly Raiche first.
>> HOLLY RAICHE: Thanks, Jonathan. I'd almost take SSAC research and put it as another point because one of the things that [coughing] is part of the discussion, how many applicants can you actually handle and is a safe number and is not a safe number? So the SSAC advice that relates to DNS abuse and DNS safety, which I kind of, I would want that almost as a separate point. Just a thought. Thank you.
>> JONATHAN ZUCK: Okay, Holly, yeah. Sure, we can talk about -- I mean, I feel like, again, answering those kinds of questions is another example of the types of questions that need answers and research to support those answers prior to any new round. But if you think it should be broken out as a separate bullet, we can do that as well.
Alan, go ahead, please.
>> ALAN GREENBERG: Thank you very much. Alan Greenberg speaking. A couple of points, first of all one of the things you mentioned was the ICANN statement that the nature of the systems they will build will be highly very, very different depending on the number of applicants. I don't recall ever hearing that. And certainly, it may be true if we're talking 50 applicants versus 2000, but I don't believe that would be the case, at least I've never heard it. If we're talking the kind of numbers we're talking right now.
With regard to a study to gage the number of applicants, if I remember correctly a study was done for the last round and they guessed 500 and it turned out to be off by a factor of three or so. So I'm not sure there's a lot of merit.
But all of that being said, this kind of work was being done in the 2006 timeframe last time around, well before we were ready with any rules or procedures, and I come from an operational background and these things take a long time. And the assumptions may not be the correct ones, but you need some assumptions to start doing the work. And I believe what they are doing is, in fact, the right approach.
You know, it starts putting reality in place of just hand waving and starts identifying real issue that is have to be addressed as we go forward. So I'm not sure I would support an ALAC statement saying you are doing all this and you should stop doing it and there are 17 things you should be doing first.
Thank you.
>> JONATHAN ZUCK: Thanks, Alan. And to be clear, I'm certainly not recommending a statement that what they're doing in general is wrong. That was some of the reaction that happened in the room because, I think, folks kind of misunderstood the way it was presented. I'm with you that they need to be doing this. It's just a question of whether they have done it, right? I think that would be the nature of the comments that we're talking about, not whether it should be done because I think there's agreement --
>> ALAN GREENBERG: Certainly my opinion is probably they have done it more right than wrong at this point.
>> JONATHAN ZUCK: All right, thanks.
>> ALAN GREENBERG: Obviously it could be done differently.
>> JONATHAN ZUCK: Yeah and the IT people did say in their public session that the difference between 500 and 1,000 applications was material on the systems they would need to build. So, I mean, it is sort of in the numbers we're talking about, it's not 50 versus 1,000. So that's in the transcript of that public session that they held.
Justine.
>> JUSTINE CHEW: Yes, thanks, Jonathan. This is Justine for the record.
This is in relation to the point Alan brought up -- well, two points. The one about systems. I think they said something about building a scalable system, so something that can, you know, presumably meet large numbers of applications, but I could be wrong in my memory.
Just the other point is that I also agree with Alan and Jonathan that this is something that ICANN GDD has to do in preparation for the next round, whether it happens or not. And it's just at the planning stage. You need something to plan, basically, you know? But my take on it is that they need to get the assumptions as close to as what it might be as possible. And in this respect, in terms of the 2000 applicants, that's something that they, you know, based on the last round, I don't think they have anything else to base it on. And we've had numbers thrown in SubPro from 5,000 to 25,000, something like that. But 25,000 doesn't make sense to me.
But I think what's more important is also handling applications is one thing, but handling delegations is another, so I think that's where SSAC advice comes in as well, although, in one of the work tracts they did consider the question about, what is a safety delegation rate? So that might be something that we want to touch on.
And the other point was that this inconsistent outsourcing, I also am a little bit uncomfortable with that because as far as my memory serves me, throughout the discussions in SubPro, we kept on asking ICANN Org whether, you know, in terms of scalability of the application process, whether ICANN Org could support that and all the while they said they could. And, you know, there was not a hint of anything about, you know, them outsourcing this and outsourcing that. So I'm a little fuzzy on this point. Thank you.
>> JONATHAN ZUCK: Thanks, Justine.
I'm going to call on Cheryl and paste the text from Christopher's note about the outsourcing, hopefully it will provide some clarity. Go ahead, Cheryl. Thank you.
>> CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Thank you, Jonathan. Cheryl for the record. I, first of all, want to endorse, and this is my personal opinion here, what Alan and you, Jonathan, have said that preparation in these things is a smart thing and to do it effectively one has to make some assumptions. And what they are asking us to do is a little bit of market research, feedback, I guess, on the assumptions they are currently thinking they will work with. So I think this is a good and healthy interaction. So let's make it as useful as we possibly can.
And I guess I sat through about four of the presentations in [indiscernible] with Sirus and [indiscernible], so I've heard it sort of several times and I think it's important that we have this September webinar or whenever it is, August, there's a webinar, anyway, and we take the opportunity to have a full frank and fearless discussion and help them make better, if not best assumption choices.
But I do want to say something about the delegation rates and the critical paths of SSAC, and also mention that, you know, there are SSAC people who have a vested interest in things like delegation as well, so let's not only think about what SSAC has published, but remind you all, for those of you who aren't aware, that subsequent procedure Working Group, quite some time back, and continues to do, has approaches both RSAC and SSAC for specific advice on delegation rates and what exactly is the concern about, you know, a number chosen and previously published. And what we have got from them, not from us, from them, is a quite specific and definite algorithm which shows there is a scalable rate of delegation, that they believe it can operate without giving any problems at all to the stability and security issues. So rather than a flat number, which was what was presented simply because it was an assumption and they needed a number at the time, I suspect, but regardless of that, we're not going to suddenly break things if we go through delegations over the number previously published. They felt deeply on the issue, they were from the 2012 round delegations going on in that and they have quite an extensive algorithm on the appropriateness and rate of a scalable set of delegations.
That's all availability information. If anyone wants it, I'm sure we can get it out of the subsequent procedure archives if you want to have it on file. Thank you.
>> JONATHAN ZUCK: Thanks very much, Cheryl.
Christopher.
>> Hi, good evening, again. Or maybe it's morning.
Thanks. Two points.
First of all, let me clarify that the notes I wrote to Sirus, which apparently have hit a certain audience, my main point was the concern that the Staff was in effect unilaterally excluding from their assumptions a significant number of options that were still in active discussion in the PDP or in work tract 5.
And I think I made the point that needs to be corrected. That being said, I have absolutely no reservation, professional experience [indiscernible], I have no reservation with the underlying opposition that Staff should at a Senior Management level and then at the working level, start to plan for what might become a new round.
The other aspects we can discuss later. Thank you.
>> JONATHAN ZUCK: Thanks, Christopher.
I'll have to go back and look at your comments as well. But as an action item, is anyone opposed to me just trying to throw a little pros around this so we can get our sort of immediate feedback to Sirus that he has recently requested? I guess that's really the answer, as long as we make clear that we think the exercise itself is important.
>> CHRISTOPHER: Allow me to chip back in a second. Sirus has not replied to me, I wrote to Sirus. If Sirus has been responding back to ALAC leadership, that's his privilege, but it would be nice to know what he has to say. I would be glad to participate as a spokesperson in the forthcoming webinar, if that's what it is, or to contribute to ALAC in the response that we may make. But it's fairly straightforward. Staff have to adjust their options to include significant options that are under discussion. Thank you.
>> JONATHAN ZUCK: Thanks, Christopher.
Yes, I don't think Sirus is responding to anybody's comments, he is responding to the fact that ALAC has yet to respond. That's what is going on. Thanks, Christopher.
All right, I think that's it, Olivier. I'll put a little bit around this and circulate it around the list and we'll get something out to Cyrus. Back to you, Olivier.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Thanks so much. Thank you, Jonathan. Olivier now speaking.
Now I'm a little concerned, actually really concerned, we have six minutes until the official end of this call and still many, many more to deal with.
I wondered if we could work the work tract 5 geoname scenarios to, well, offline, and then to next week's call. There is going to be an actual webinar that is going on next week, in addition to our usual call. I wonder if we can move the GeoNames and the CPWG charter as well to next week and move straight to the policy comment updates.
Is that okay with everyone here, including you, Jonathan, because it's mostly your bits that are being -- I'm not going to say chopped out, they are being carved out.
>> JONATHAN ZUCK: No, no, understand. I will say the GeoNames is basically one slide and it is, in fact, an offline process. So it's a one minute presentation if they want to bring it up.
Basically the scenarios are a set of use cases, we have talked about it, about which we're going to try to turn them into a survey to get a sense of outcomes that people are happy with or not happy with. There's now a document, and I imagine somebody from Staff can put a link to the document in the chat, it's a Google Doc that shows the scenarios where they now stand. I just want to give everybody a week to look at them and see if it's the -- if there's additions, changes, stupid things that I've got in there that should be removed, et cetera, before it's a survey. I'm just asking people to take the next week to look at that. So that's the end of that topic.
So make note of this comment-only link that Evin just circulated and make comments on that document over the course of the next week because it will become a survey in a week. All right?
Thanks, Olivier.
And to -- as far as the other one, I think that is a more extended thing, so we can push that off. I will say that it includes some issues about end users that's worthy of some discussion by us to address part of what Evin has been raising and I feel very strongly about as well, which is making sure we filter on actual individual end user interests before we spin ourselves up as we have in the past just because something seems important to ICANN.
Okay. So with that, you may skip these two things. And everyone needs to go to the document for the GeoNames and we'll push the charter and process stuff to the next call.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Thank you, Jonathan.
And to it's Olivier speaking. Next is Agenda Item 8. Over to Evin Erdogdu and then, of course, back to you as well, Jonathan. Evin.
>> EVIN ERDOGDU: Thank you, Olivier. This is Evin for the record. I'll be super-brief since we are limited for time. There were two comments recently ratified by ALAC and their summaries are posted. And we have already spent much of this call discussing SubPro, so the more pressing comments to discuss is closing this next Monday, the 5th of August, and that's the draft financial assumptions and projections and operating initiatives for the development of fiscal years 2021-2025 offering a financial plan. And on the agenda there's a Google Doc which is comment-only, which Judith and Marita have worked on. There's also a Word doc that will be incorporated into the Google Doc, but please reference the Google Doc for this statement and provide your comments since it will need to be submitted this upcoming Monday.
And with that, I guess I'll turn it over to Judith.
>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Yeah, this is Judith Hellerstein for the record. On the Google Doc, what this statement about financial objectives and financial assumptions references the strategic plan. And so in the statement, if you look on Page 3 of the Google Doc, I give a little background. The background is it references the ALAC statements we made on strategic plan, it reference the ALAC statements we made on the budget, on the two-year planning, on the multi-stakeholder evolution. ALAC has published statements on all these. And a lot of these we are referencing in the Google Doc. So that's why I decided to put a sheet that has background information so that everyone is clear that this is set up like the background to our analysis.
And then getting to the financial assumptions, we're looking at, as we discussed earlier, what kind of assumptions that were made and are they validated? Why do they think -- going back, why do they think a second round is going to be nirvana? And have they weighed the costs and benefits of that? And they haven't looked at that. In the document that ICANN asked us to look at, they made assumptions A through H. So this document looks at some of these assumptions and sort of, like, like discusses them. Also, it's a two-part thing, it's not only just the assumptions, but they want us to look at, again, the organizational priorities and with that, that's why I reference all those five documents because they list all these 16 objectives, which then the strategic plan we had boiled down to five. So then we discussed those. And, also, we are discussing some issues on planning, which we took from the responses in the two-year planning process document and some other documents where we said that -- we made a statement that planning is really important and it's something we need to take into and here's what we said on that.
And then they asked us, one of the other statements was the auction proceeds, and they said, oh, we'll be supporting it. I said that's gratifying because we spent hundreds and hundreds of hours working these past years.
And lastly this is a statement in ICANN reserves because that was in their objective. So talking about that statement is from the ICANN reserve statement that we had posted in the beginning of the year when they were taking money out from the auction proceeds and they were creating a strategic reserve fund of that. So it's basically referencing many of the documents that we had already published. But we would love to have your questions, comments, and it's comment-only, so please put your comments in and we'll get to it.
The only thing that's missing is the links that Evin is going to post into our public comments so people can directly reference that public comment and see where the statements come from.
Hopefully that was quick enough.
Any questions?
>> MARITA MOLL: Hello, Judith, it's Marie that.
>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Yes, Marita?
>> MARITA MOLL: Yes, I spent a couple of mornings this week on my vacation putting together a large part of what you're going to read here. And the one part that concerns me, I think that a great deal of it is mostly we're going to, you know, we're going to agree with a lot of what ICANN is suggesting here. But the one thing that could get controversial and a lot depends on of our financial assumptions depends on that money coming in.
We we want them to tone down their assumptions, that money coming in, it will tone down things on operational things. So we need to look at if we are really in agreement about the new gTLD rounds. So if you don't have time to look at anything else there, please comment on that particular item.
Thank you very much.
>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Yes, thanks, Marita for doing work on this, she helped write up all of the financial assumptions that were key. And Marita was joined by all three of us on this. I did the later part. But, yes, we would like your comments and suggestions, so please put them in the comment box because unless we get an extension, and I don't know if anybody asked for an extension, it's due Monday. We could possible ask for an extension if people think that's necessary.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Judith, it's Olivier. You are running the queue at the moment. I've put my hand up.
>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: I'm so sorry, I didn't realize I was running the queue.
So, Olivier, you have a hand up.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Yeah, thank you very much, Judith. Olivier speaking.
You just mentioned what I wanted to ask, which was because there is this significant point that is being made in the statement, in the proposed statement, and because we're so close to the closing date of this public period which is the 5th of August, I had a look at the overall schedule of what happens afterwards and my understanding is that after public comments, Staff puts together and processes all of the public comments.
The next thing that is going to be important is the Board retreat. And that happens only in September, 2019. So that gives wondered if it would be a wise thing for the ALAC to perhaps ask for an additional delay, maybe another week, so that we can actually have a good view of what's being written in that proposed statement.
>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Thanks so much, Olivier. So Jonathan, what's the process for this? Or Evin?
>> EVIN ERDOGDU: This is Evin speaking. I can make a request to the Staff who is gathering [background noise] to grant an extension to ALAC and I'll CC the Chair, Maureen, on the request. And once they reply, I'll let the Penholders know. I can go ahead and request that immediately if you would like me to.
>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: Yes, Evin, thanks so much. It's Judith again for the record. I think that's a good idea. If we can get a request for a week, if not, we'll take whatever days we can get.
>> EVIN ERDOGDU: Okay. Will do.
>> JUDITH HELLERSTEIN: I don't see any other hands. Any others? Last chance for hands up on this issue. Okay, going once, going twice. Okay, I guess we will close then.
I also sort of reference in the document because they talk about in the assumptions document about the next one that's due on August 9th. And so I reference that, too, because this assumptions document reference everything that we talk about, so maybe also people can look at that as well because that is referenced as well. The governance of the root service system, they reference that in the assumptions as well.
Okay, back to Jonathan or Olivier.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Jonathan?
>> JONATHAN ZUCK: I think Evin and I are done with this section, so back to you.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Thank you very much, Jonathan. Olivier speaking.
So we can now look at our next point, which is any other business. And this is, of course, opening the floor, mentioning that the other public comments involving the governance of the root service system and the scope of inquiry for the name Collision Analysis Project will either have time for the one that closes on the 12th of August or is actually pretty much finalized and uncontroversial for the one that closes on the 9th of August.
Seeing one hand, Justine Chew.
>> JUSTINE CHEW: Yes, thanks Olivier. This is Justine for the record. I just wanted to briefly touch on the names collision comment. Well, I haven't heard anything from Greg. Greg, you might want to post something on the workspace. But I've looked at this and coming from the position of being one of the observers on the discussion to follow the development of this -- what's it called -- the definition of the name collision and scope of inquiry that has been put up for public comment. I don't think there's anything controversial. I think it's pretty much been talked to death by people who are probably more qualified than I am.
And I just wanted to note that the two things which I found to be quite, you know, important to me anyway, which is the retention of Type B situations. If you go to the workspace, you'll know what I'm talking, about Type B. And also, the possibility of amending the definition and the scope if, for example, during study one, you know, the work pointed to something substantial that we then need to look at for study two.
That's it. And unless someone else has got substantial input, the think the statement is pretty much there. It's short. Thanks.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Thanks for that, Justine. This is Olivier speaking. I'm not seeing any other hands, so thanks for taking us through the statement.
So I have not seen any hands for any other business. We are ten minutes beyond the end of this call.
So the last item in the agenda is to find out when our next call will take place and I understand this strict rotation will take us to 13:00 UTC next week on the -- it's going to be August already, on the 7th of August. 13:00 UTC, are there any conflicts, any major conflicts for anyone on this call?
Goodness, it sound, sorry.
>> [Overlapping conversation]
>> CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: This is Cheryl. I could not unmute quickly enough. Please get Staff to double-check, but I believe anybody involved in the Nominating Committee review implementation Working Group has a meeting at 13:00 UTC for 90 minutes on rotation at that time. That's certainly what is showing in my calendar, but double-check, feel free.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Cheryl, it's Olivier speaking. Is it better to have a later time or are there more important calls in later times? I'm looking here at the Nominating Committee. That's the new Nominating Committee, I gather.
>> CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: No, that's the Review Team. The Implementation Review Team.
>> OLIVIER CREPIN-LeBLOND: Oh, the review.
>> CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Yeah. They rotate their calls and one of the times happens to be 13:00 UTC and it's every fourth night and this will be a thing if we stay on the same synchronicity will continue to happen.
But on the day in question, there is another call which I would argue is relatively important for everyone's interest and it is the very first call of the convened Work Stream two implementation team, the implementation oversight team for the recommendations. And that's a call that is being moved to that immediately following time. to, what would it be, 2100 or 2000, what's your other alternative?
>> It's 1900 is our rotation. We do that again --
>> CHERYL LANGDON-ORR: Okay, 1900, if you do 1900, then you would only have a half hour overlap, the next week after will be 13: 00 UTCing automatically on-screen as one says them and to be able to look back.
>> Thanks, everyone.
>> CLAUDIA RUIZ: Thank you all for joining. This meeting is now adjourned. Please remember to disconnect your lines.
[Meeting concluded]
CART Disclaimer: This rough edit transcript, which may contain missing, misspelled or paraphrased words, is only provided for your immediate review and is not certified as verbatim and is not to be cited in any way.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CPWG_Transcrip_31072019_ODT.odt
Type: application/vnd.oasis.opendocument.text
Size: 50001 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/attachments/20190731/4b34bcd2/CPWG_Transcrip_31072019_ODT-0001.odt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CPWG_Transcrip_31072019_DOC.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 176128 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/attachments/20190731/4b34bcd2/CPWG_Transcrip_31072019_DOC-0001.doc>
More information about the lac-discuss-en
mailing list